On 31 Jan., 10:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <65959390-0681-4d8a-8e3c-7b1e8dad9...@w7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 31 Jan., 01:58, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > In article > > > <397a90fb-2e3e-411f-ae40-2365cadd1...@b11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > I have developed a new proof-technique, namely proof by ignorance > > > > That is hardly new for Wolkenmuekenheim, but has been the ONLY standard > > > there for years. > > > Thinks are easy if things are easy. > > Consider a box with a dozen different pralines. If I take three out of > > the boxh and return it to you, you can decide which I did not take out > > by looking at the remaining ones. > > > Consider a Binary Tree. When I remove or colour some paths, you can > > decide which are remaining by looking at the uncoloured paths. > > > And finally consider a Binary Tree with uncountably many paths. When I > > colour a countable set of paths, then you have to decide by looking at > > the remainings which paths have survived. > > While WM may include every node in his countable set of paths, he does > not, and cannot, simultanteously include every path.
I include every possible combination of nodes that reside at finite levels. If there are not nodes residing at infinite levels, then I include every path. If you don't agree, show another path.
But remember, I do not stop at a node at a finite level, but in addition, I append every possible tail, i.e., every tail that can be defined by a finite word.
I beg every amount of money that you will not be able to find a missing path. Hence yor assertion is based only on (counterfactual) belief. A typical matheologian.